Focus Group Findings on
Community Energy Efficiency Programs
Administered by the Washington State University Energy Program
August 2013
Acknowledgement
This project is funded in whole or in part by funds made available through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
Disclaimer
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither
the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express
or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or
favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed
herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
© 2013 Washington State University Energy Program
This publication contains material written and produced for public distribution. You may reprint this written
material, provided you do not use it to endorse a commercial product. Please reference by title and credit the
Washington State University Energy Program.
WSUEEP13-030 • August 2013
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3
Focus Group Characteristics ................................................................................................... 5
Findings................................................................................................................................. 6
Non-Participants ............................................................................................................................6
Importance of Energy-Related Issues ..................................................................................................................6
Home Energy Activities ........................................................................................................................................8
A Focus on Products .............................................................................................................................................8
Participants ................................................................................................................................. 10
Energy-Related Features of Their Homes ..........................................................................................................10
Benefits of Home Energy Activities ....................................................................................................................11
Participating in a Local CEEP ..............................................................................................................................12
Messaging and Benefits....................................................................................................... 14
Channels and Messengers ............................................................................................................ 14
Utilities and PUDs ...............................................................................................................................................15
Universities and Higher Education .....................................................................................................................15
Government Agencies, Offices, and Officials .....................................................................................................15
Non-Profits and Others ......................................................................................................................................16
Leaning Toward Local Talent ........................................................................................................ 16
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 17
Non-participants clearly felt they were on their own .................................................................... 17
Non-participants should be the audience for additional outreach.................................................. 17
People want to see people like themselves as spokespersons ....................................................... 17
Universities were the clear choice as unbiased sources of information .......................................... 18
Building analysts are the ultimate source of reliable information .................................................. 18
Final thoughts on future messaging .............................................................................................. 18
Appendix A: CEEP Sampling Strategy .................................................................................. A-1
Appendix B: Statewide Focus Group Facilitation Guide ........................................................ B-1
List of Tables
Table 1. Self-Reported Focus Group Member Characteristics......................................................... 5
Table 2. Benefits of Energy Efficiency Projects .............................................................................. 14
i
Executive Summary
Since 2010, the Washington State University (WSU) Energy Program’s Community Energy
Efficiency Program (CEEP) has been delivering home energy assessments and improvement
resources in six areas around Washington state. To better understand how homeowners feel
about the importance of residential energy efficiency and the value of home energy
improvements, the WSU Energy Program conducted focus groups in each of the six areas
served by local CEEP providers. Half of the focus group members had worked with their local
CEEP provider and the other half did not. Homeowners were chosen to participate in the focus
groups because they are numerous, easy to reach, and can make independent decisions about
upgrades and changes to their property. The information that was gathered in the focus groups
will be used to inform marketing campaigns for ongoing and future CEEP efforts at the local and
state-wide levels.
As revealed during the focus group meetings, homeowners who participated in CEEP (referred
to here as participants) felt like experts themselves, due to their involvement with the program.
They felt well supported and were aware of the resources they could use to help them move
toward their energy conservation goals. They readily acknowledged the value in feeling
knowledgeable.
In contrast, those who did not participate in CEEP (referred to here as non-participants) clearly
felt they were on their own in their efforts to make their homes more energy efficient and
comfortable. They were often frustrated with the results of their efforts. Non-participants did
not know who to turn to for reliable, unbiased information about energy efficiency
improvements. They also expressed fear of being overcharged, the work being done incorrectly,
or being sold something they did not need. They seemed unaware of the most effective, lowcost ways to make their homes more efficient.
Feedback from focus group members lead to the following conclusions:
 Non-participants should be the audience for additional outreach.
 People want to see people like themselves as spokespersons for information campaigns
about home energy efficiency.
 Utilities and PUDs are important backers of energy efficiency work, but may be viewed
with some distrust and frustration.
 Universities were the clear choice as unbiased sources of information.
 Local and state government offices are also needed for legitimacy, but should only be
endorsers of the program, not prominent advocates.
 Local home improvement stores should be drawn in as partners because they are
trusted sources for help and information.
 Building analysts are the ultimate source of reliable information.
 Messages need to convey the value (cost benefit) of the assessment because people
are still risk averse – even if the dollar value is considered quite small.
2
Introduction
Since 2010, the Washington State University (WSU) Energy Program’s Community Energy
Efficiency Program (CEEP) has been working with local programs to deliver home energy
assessments and improvement resources in six areas around Washington state. The WSU
Energy Program wants homeowners in Washington state to view energy efficiency as an
important and integral part of everyday living.
The WSU Energy Program developed a research plan to better understand how homeowners
feel about the importance of residential energy efficiency and the value of home energy
improvements. The method chosen was to conduct focus groups to gather information that will
be used to inform marketing campaigns for ongoing and future CEEP efforts at local and statewide levels.
The audience for this focus group effort was homeowners. Homeowners are an ideal audience
to study because they are numerous, easy to reach, and can make independent decisions about
upgrades and changes to their property.
WSU Energy Program staff conducted two focus groups in each of the areas served by CEEP
providers across the state. The six areas represented in the focus groups are:
 Spokane (Sustainable Works)
 Walla Walla (Sustainable Living Center
 Whatcom County – Bellingham and Ferndale (Community Energy Challenge)
 King County – North Seattle (Sustainable Works)
 Thurston County – Lacey (Thurston Energy)
 Clark County – Vancouver (Clark County PUD)
One focus group in each area was composed of 12 people who had not participated in
assessments and upgrades offered by their local CEEP provider. They are referred to here as
non-participants. Non-participants were recruited from randomly selected listed phone
numbers. Each focus group member was offered an incentive of $50 cash for their
participation.
The other focus group in each area was composed of 12 people who had participated in the
local programs. They are referred to here as participants. Participants, chosen from the local
CEEP provider’s contact information, were further grouped as follows:

Six of the focus group members participated only in the home assessment, where the
local CEEP provider evaluated their home’s energy use and developed a list of potential
improvements that could reduce their energy use and related costs. These households
may have moved ahead with making improvements to their homes, but they did not do
so through their local CEEP provider.
3

Six of the focus group members participated in the home assessments and continued
to work with their local CEEP provider to implement some or all of the recommended
improvements.
In counties where homeowners in major cities or metropolitan areas had been targeted by the
local CEEP provider differently than homeowners in outlying areas, an even mix of people from
each area was invited to attend. One participant per household was invited, and the groups
were balanced to be half male and half female. These strategies assured diverse representation
of perspectives in the discussions. Neutral, accessible locations were chosen for the focus group
meetings.
The CEEP Sampling Strategy is provided here as Appendix A. The focus groups were run
according to the facilitation guidelines provided as Appendix B.
4
Focus Group Characteristics
Focus group members completed a short survey describing themselves before the discussion
started (see Table 1). The survey results indicate that non-participants and participants were
quite similar in the areas that were reported. Most focus group members lived in houses that
were 40 or more years old. Over 60 percent had a minimum of a four-year college degree. Over
60 percent were currently married. Half were female (as result of recruiting parameters, not
necessarily an indicator of interest) and almost 20 percent had children living at home. More
than half were age 60 or older.
Table 1. Self-Reported Focus Group Member Characteristics
Non-Participants
(n=52)
Participants
(n=57)
Total
10
11
5
8
8
10
10
11
10
10
9
7
20
22
14
18
17
17
8%
12%
14%
8%
59%
5%
11%
11%
12%
61%
7%
11%
12%
10%
60%
6%
14%
14%
31%
35%
5%
18%
14%
33%
30%
6%
16%
14%
32%
32%
69%
43%
18%
64%
55%
21%
66%
50%
19%
4%
8%
29%
37%
22%
7%
11%
36%
37%
9%
6%
9%
33%
37%
15%
Number of focus group members attending
Spokane
Walla Walla
Whatcom
King
Thurston
Clark
Age of home
Less than 10 years
10-19 years
20-29 years
30-39 years
40 years or more
Highest education of participant
High school or less
Some college, no degree or certificate
Two-year AA/AS degree or certificate
Four-year college graduate
Advanced college
Other personal characteristics
Currently married
Female
Children under the age of 18 living at home
Age of participant
Under 40
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 or older
5
Findings
Members of each focus group provided different perspectives about energy efficiency in the
state, their community, and their homes. Through this effort, WSU Energy Program energy
specialists came to a better understanding of:
 Reasoning and motivation involved in committing to a home energy assessment and
making one or more of the recommended improvements, and
 Experiences, attitudes and beliefs of people who are not motivated to participate or
have not heard of the local programs.
Non-Participants
Members of the non-participant focus groups indicated that their experiences, attitudes and
dispositions were similar to those of people that the local CEEP providers hope to reach
through their marketing campaign. The fact that they took the time to be part of the focus
group suggests they probably were interested in energy efficiency and home energy use at the
time they were contacted about the focus group. People who are not at all interested in these
topics would likely have refused the invitation to be a part of the focus group. It is also unlikely
that they would pay attention to CEEP marketing efforts.
The discussion with non-participants covered four main topics:
 Importance of energy, home energy and energy efficiency – learning what participants
think of these issues and if their outlook is mostly positive, negative, or neutral.
 Activities they have engaged in regarding home energy.
 Benefits they have experienced as a result of their activity (specifically, products they
have purchased). If they have not made any changes, benefits they perceive from
making changes.
 Organizations and people who they think should provide information about home
energy efficiency (discussed in the next chapter).
The last two of these points were also discussed with program participants.
Importance of Energy-Related Issues
Non-participants were prompted to share their thoughts regarding the importance of energy,
home energy and energy efficiency issues. The questions were intentionally broad to explore
the issues that participants were concerned about. The purpose was to learn what they
typically think of when “energy” is the topic and whether their attitudes and experiences were
predominantly positive, negative, or neutral.
When prompted to discuss anything that came to mind about energy, 18 non-participants
mentioned energy efficiency. Another 13 mentioned alternative energy sources including
hydro, solar, and wind power.
When asked about local energy issues, 38 percent of focus group members spoke to the topic.
They often cited programs offered by their utility, tying these programs to their understanding
6
of “local energy.” Some members noticed local efforts, including low-energy demonstration
homes, a high school energy conservation program and LED street lights installed in their town.
When asked about energy at the state level, 23 percent responded, most commonly about
wind energy and solar opportunities. Transportation, hydroelectric power, energy conservation,
the aging electrical grid and dams were also mentioned.
Responses from the focus group members were predominantly positive, especially if talking
about energy efficiency. The open questions generated a broad range of answers, from projects
they were doing at their homes to the cost of their heating bills and alternative energy sources.
Energy sources and utilities were the predominant topics.
When negative comments arose, they usually had to do with energy costs and discomfort that
the participants experienced in their own homes, not with broader issues. Six participants
mentioned discomfort, especially being cold, in their homes or other buildings. Energy costs
were mentioned by 14 focus group members; of those, 12 had mostly negative impressions.
The issues mentioned included:
 Frustration that rate increases offset use reduction and energy efficiency improvements
 Unpredictable fuel oil and utility rates
 Trouble understanding utility bills and charges
 Difficulty of keeping their costs down
Here is a sample of comments related to each of those themes:
“I’m amazed at how much we try to cut down our energy use at home and how high our
heating bill is.” [laughter from other members]
– Vancouver
“The costs just keep going up. You cut back, but they just increase the rates.”
– Spokane
“I’m happy to save energy but I’d like to see it reflected in my bill.”
– Vancouver
“I always wonder what the gas bill will be when it comes every month. I had an oil
furnace before and that was really a shock when they filled the tank because you really
never know.”
– Whatcom
“I think it’s a little mysterious. Just reading my energy bill – I think there’s a lot of stuff on
there that I haven’t done a lot of personal research on.”
– Lacey
7
Participants also expressed mistrust of products and labels, as exemplified by this comment:
“I think that it’s maybe not as interesting as it is just the normal way business works. We
tend to oversell the energy efficiency of stuff that’s on the market…this gadget will only
use so much energy per year. Well, when you actually put it into practice, it uses half
again that much. Maybe you would get those results if you use it the way they perhaps
tested it, but the test isn’t very realistic.”
– Whatcom
Home Energy Activities
When asked to talk about home energy, almost all of the discussion involved descriptions of
projects or improvements they had undertaken. Unlike the broader questions about local and
state energy issues, these focus group members thought about bills and efficiency, not utilities,
alternative energy sources, or politics. It is useful to note that “home energy” is not infused
with political overtones among these focus group members, does not appear to carry with it
tones of conservative or liberal ideology, and does not appear to be inflammatory.
Discomfort was a dominant theme when the facilitators
brought the discussion around to home energy. When
focus group members were asked about energy in their
own homes, eight people complained of discomfort,
including uneven heating of the house, dislike of the
color of CFL and LED bulbs, and simply feeling cold. Ten
talked about the cost of home energy and nine talked
about the cost of improvements, mostly feeling they
could not afford to make energy-saving improvements
or that upfront costs were too high.
“I think that most people are
probably concerned about the
bottom line – I know I am. I have an
older house and it seems to be fairly
cold even at 60 degrees when you
turn the thermostat up. They tout
insulation and it’s probably a good
thing and I could undoubtedly stand
more of it.”
– Whatcom
Non-participants detailed many ways in which they felt thwarted in their attempts to fix
discomfort problems or address cost issues. Many experienced similar frustrations about
buying the wrong product, uncertainty about what to buy, feeling overwhelmed by research
about products such as heat pumps or water heaters, or feeling skeptical of installers.
A Focus on Products
Consider this series of missteps from a homeowner who was willing to invest in more efficient
lighting for his home – a fairly common activity, but one that is complicated by a number of
variables.
“Interesting thing, the last two weeks I decided to switch out all my light bulbs to LED… so I
ordered them online, got them, put them in, and can’t stand them. [Facilitator asks what it is
about them he didn’t like.] They’re blue. I like the warm [colors]. …Several hundred dollars
later, I’ve got a pile of LED bulbs, that... I don’t know why they can’t put a filter over them.
And I didn’t look to see that they had, you know, on Amazon they didn’t talk about color
temperatures. So I guess I really didn’t know what I was ordering. And it’s the packaging –
8
when you open it, you can never put it back because you have to cut it open with a pen
knife... Then I started to do some research a little bit about the LEDs and I found out that
they’re really hard on the environment to make, the manufacturing [process] is like ten
times worse on the environment than a regular light bulb.”
– Walla Walla
Non-participants were very likely to talk about items they could purchase to save energy as
opposed to improvements they could make to their
homes. For example, the most common activity
Number of non-participants who
(mentioned by 22 focus group members) was to get a
mentioned energy efficiency activities
new furnace or change their fuel source. A close
22 New furnace or change of fuel source
second was installing new windows (mentioned by
(replace oil with wood or gas)
20). Adding insulation was mentioned by 14 and
20
Windows
changing appliances, lights, and water heaters was
14 Insulation
mentioned by 15. Air sealing was mentioned by just
9 Turning the heat down or using zone
four focus group members across the six groups.
7
heating
Changing light bulbs
Replacing appliances
Air sealing
New water heaters
Capital expenses seemed to be top of mind, such as a
5
new furnace, windows, solar panels, and appliances. A
4
total of 29 focus group members tried to make
2
improvements to reduce their costs or discomfort, but
few used rebates (only five across all of the non-participant focus groups). It may not be
surprising, then, that so many were concerned about the cost of making improvements, such as
installing solar panels, getting a new water heater, or buying new appliances. One member
speculated that it might make more sense to buy a newer home than to put more money into
an older home.
This focus on products rather than processes may be an
indicator that non-participants are getting most of their
information about saving energy from companies that
have products to sell. Many also mentioned reading
their utility’s bill inserts and newsletters, so they
gleaned information about energy efficiency there as
well. A good portion (42 percent) said they had heard of
or read something recently about home energy
efficiency. Still, the homeowners did not often express a
comprehensive understanding of the improvements
their homes might need or the best changes to make to
improve energy efficiency.
Energy conservation was discussed
among non-participants, but mostly as
a source of frustration with others in
the household.
“I have a natural gas furnace. My issue is
when my grandchildren come over and
they get cold – up goes the heat.”
– Seattle
“Our bill plummeted when we finally got
the kids to move out.”
– Vancouver
It is interesting that some focus group members saw
switching to a different fuel source, especially wood, as a kind of energy savings. Perhaps this is
because the cost does not show up on their utility bills, but it is unclear if they had figured in
9
the cost of the wood. None mentioned the inconvenience of collecting or buying, storing,
hauling, or burning wood for heat.
The most commonly mentioned conservation strategies were:
 Programming thermostats,
 Turning the heat down,
 Wearing sweaters and socks in the home, and
 Closing off areas that did not need to be heated.
Non-participants indicated that they were often uncertain about the payoff of conservation and
efficiency measures. A simple thing like turning the heat down when they were out of the
house was not viewed as being an effective way to save energy. One focus group member
expressed concern that more energy would be needed to bring the house back up to
temperature than if the thermostat had not been turned down. In contrast to focus group
members who had participated in the program, non-participants had many unanswered
questions about energy-related issues.
Participants
Those who worked with local CEEP providers tended to be more cheerful at the focus groups
than the non-participants. They were more engaged in the discussions, perhaps because they
shared a common experience. They also seemed more knowledgeable about home energy, and
their knowledge was fairly comprehensive. They behaved as if they felt empowered and
seemed to know where to go to get the information and guidance they needed. Even if they
had a bad experience with a CEEP provider, they seemed to have a clear view of the bigger
picture. They networked very readily with each other and offered additional resources and
information. The non-participant focus groups were more reserved and hesitant to offer ideas.
The discussion with participants covered four main topics:
 Energy use or energy efficiency at their own homes or something interesting or unusual
about their home.
 Benefits they have experienced as a result of their activity.
 Barriers to program participation.
 Organizations and people who they think should provide information about home
energy efficiency (discussed in the next chapter).
Energy-Related Features of Their Homes
Program participants were asked to describe energy use or energy efficiency at their own
homes or to describe something interesting or unusual about their home (different prompts
were used by different facilitators). Nearly all participants launched into presentations about
some aspect of their assessment or home energy efficiency projects – and nearly all with a
positive viewpoint. These comments are fairly typical of the sentiments expressed in the
participant focus groups.
10
“I had some insulation done and I’m very, very happy with it because I can feel the
difference without even looking at my bill. My house feels different – much more
comfortable.”
– Spokane
“We have an envelope that is so tight and so warm… I was very impressed with the way
they handled things, the way the local contractor took care of his end, their end, no
hassles, no problems. It was a good experience for me.”
– Walla Walla
“The difference between the floor board electric and my heat pump, it’s amazing.
I love it.”
– Whatcom
Benefits of Home Energy Activities
Some of the local CEEP providers offered bid, contracting, and quality control support to
participants who made the recommended improvements through the program. Several
participants mentioned the effectiveness of making changes to their homes. They appreciated
having:
 A comprehensive list of potential improvements from their home assessment,
 Improvements prioritized by which would make the biggest difference, and
 A clear sense of the cost effectiveness of each improvement. Some local CEEP providers
included an explicit estimate of the payback period before the homeowner would start
to realize savings beyond the investment they made.
“…The details provided in my home assessment made me realize why things weren’t going
as well as I’d hoped... It made me target a few things I could do first that were feasible, not
the whole thing because it was just a matter of budget. Some things that were able to be
done were really helpful at first. It’s like ‘Oh, this I should have done when I replaced this.’ So
now as I move forward I have a broader understanding of where I should be looking if I’m
planning to change something or rearrange anything… it made me really rethink why I was
doing some of the changes to the house.”
– Spokane
Some mentioned paying less for energy, while others talked about the quality of the changes
they made. Unlike non-participants in the focus groups, participants most often mentioned
adding insulation (17). Only four mentioned changing out windows and doors, and five
mentioned buying new water heaters. None mentioned getting a new furnace.
Only one participant expressed concern that the cost of making improvements was too high. It
may be that price sensitivity was somewhat lower among the participants compared to nonparticipants, though this was not explicitly explored. Overall, participants highly valued the
energy efficiency work they had done on their homes.
11
Some of the focus group members who worked with their local CEEP provider to have a home
assessment done did not make the recommended improvements through the program. Many
of these moved forward by doing the work themselves or hiring help outside of the program.
Participating in a Local CEEP
To learn about what motivated participants to work with their local CEEP provider and any
challenges they might have experienced as part of their initial contact with their CEEP, focus
group members were asked:
 What motivated them to contact the program – particularly if it was triggered by an
external prompt or by a personal event or experience?
 What kept them from signing up, if anything, after they heard about the program?
 What difficulties may have prevented them from continuing with the program?
Motivations
The responses indicated that an even mix of proactive and reactive prompts led people to
participate in their CEEP. The most common pathways into the program were word of mouth –
things participants heard from other people (reactive) – or the participant having an existing
problem with their home (proactive). Other common triggers included being unhappy about
their home’s current energy use, either in terms of energy costs or savings from efficiency
efforts. Some tried to make improvements on their own before contacting the program (15
percent).
Environmental concerns were also mentioned by some. Seeing flyers and other advertisements
such as yard signs or utility bill inserts often provided people with the information they needed
to sign up. The low cost of participation made a positive difference to several as well. The range
of items that got people’s attention was varied and included tote bags, events, yard signs and
direct mail.
Barriers
When asked if anything got in the way once they decided to contact the program, the most
common difficulty was scheduling (mentioned by 10 people). Making appointments with the
assessor and finding times when they could be home from work to meet were identified as
particular difficulties. Repeated calls and long waits were described as unpleasant.
Ten program participants also talked about the expense of the assessment and the
recommendations. One expressed worry that the initial outlay would not be worthwhile, that
they would not learn anything new, or that the recommendations would be too expensive to
pursue. Other cost concerns included the rates that contractors would charge. Concerns about
the costs of improvements and negative experiences in the past, particularly with contractors,
were mentioned, but none were described as being significant impediments to signing up with
the local CEEP provider.
Participants’ concerns about contractors – the quality of the work they would do or the
reputation of the program and program contractors – are typified in the comment below.
12
“I really don’t like to work with contractors – he spent a little time at a community college
and knows which wrench is which. Who knows if he’s sober or where he spent the night last
weekend. Is there a way to get better contractors? Either get them vetted or train them.”
– Spokane
Finally, program complexity and problems with communication among participants and the
programs or contractors were also a barrier to participation.
“For me, I was unclear about who had the ball… I wanted to have the installation in the fall
and I still haven’t finished. It’s partly me being busy. But part of it’s been unclear. We’ve
been back and forth several times on the phone and with emails.”
– Walla Walla
13
Messaging and Benefits
Messages for the statewide CEEP campaign should focus on the key benefits identified by
homeowners who successfully implemented energy efficiency work. The rank order of benefits
was similar among the two sets of focus groups, although those who did not participate in the
regional CEEPs placed more emphasis on the short-term rather than the long-term impacts of
the work.
The two strongest benefits were lower cost of operating the household and increased comfort.
These topics were discussed at more than twice the rate of other topics (see Table 2). Using less
energy and doing something that protects the environment were also mentioned consistently,
but not as prominently. Interestingly, program participants also noted the community benefits
of having the work done – especially in terms of job creation – and the long-term benefit of
improving their property value.
Table 2. Benefits of Energy Efficiency Projects
Lower cost/do more for same amount
More comfortable
Less energy used
Environmental benefits/good citizenship
Improved lighting
Less noise
Improved health/safety
Learned something
Improved property value
Builds community/jobs
Non-Participants
18
15
5
5
4
3
3
1
0
0
For some, energy conservation and efficiency have
social meaning in terms of leaving a legacy or “doing the
right thing.” Some mentioned reducing their impacts on
the planet. Although this was a minor thread, it was
noted in each regional discussion. Alternative energy
was also discussed in general terms, with a tone of
interest, not contention.
Participants
7
5
3
3
0
1
1
1
4
5
Total
25
20
8
8
4
4
4
2
4
5
“I wonder how it’s going to affect our
children and our children’s children. I
wonder what will be lacking and
what will come as the future comes.”
– Lacey
Channels and Messengers
Both sets of focus groups were asked to identify organizations they considered leaders “in
understanding home improvements that would save you energy.” Among the organizations
discussed were utilities and public utility districts (PUDs), universities and other higher
education institutions, state and local government agencies, and non-profits.
They were also asked to think about local, state, and national experts who they thought could
be effective messengers of this information.
14
Utilities and PUDs
Focus group members saw a role for utilities and PUDs as
leaders in the programs, but there were caveats. While
“Trustworthiness is a scale. Probably
utilities and PUDs are considered knowledgeable experts,
at the top of the scale would be state
employees of utilities and PUDs are also driven by profit.
universities and probably at the
Ultimately, focus group members did not think they could
bottom of the scale would be fortrust utilities or PUDs to have their best interests at heart.
profit utilities.”
– Seattle
While these entities may be objective in noting which
home improvements are effective or helpful in providing
rebates, focus group members did not feel that utilities or PUDs could be trusted to help
homeowners make unbiased decisions about their own homes.
Universities and Higher Education
Concerns about ulterior motives and influences
discouraged focus group members from trusting any
channel or messenger except universities. In a few cases,
members expressed concerns about research funding being
a corrupting influence at universities, but far more
prevalent was the sentiment that universities, the
extension agent or educators were above reproach.
Participants felt the motives of institutions of higher
education were more transparent than those of other
organizations, and that university staff were knowledgeable
about the subject matter without being biased in their
recommendations by profit-oriented motives.
“I think the state university has a big
role. …They are the most impartial of
all …they can play the role of just
getting the best information, and this
energy stuff – if you’ve gone
through an assessment, it's pretty
technical and there’s new technology
happening all the time. It seems like
there’s a role for that sort of
impartial, highly expert, researchoriented entity.”
– Seattle
Government Agencies, Offices, and Officials
Government officials were also discussed. The U.S. Secretary of Energy, Washington state
Governor Jay Inslee, and state and local government offices were suggested as potential seats
of information about home energy. Focus group members did not reject government offices or
spokespeople outright, but they did express some concern about the limitations of the role that
government could play in energy efficiency programs. They also had reservations about the
motives and influences of government officials as potential spokespeople.
“The problem I have with a lot of state and federal government is the lobbyists – the
special interests that influence what goes on in government so you don’t know whose
voice you can trust.”
– Vancouver
“Pretty much in government, the higher you are, the less trustworthy you are.”
– Spokane
15
“…Everyone knows that he [Governor Jay Inslee] is a Democrat, and as soon as you hit
that, it’s us versus them. You start going, ‘Well he’s a Democrat,’ so if you’re not [a
Democrat too], you’re going to tune out anything he says. It might be right, it might be
the best new thing to conserve energy, but you’re not going to hear it.”
– Vancouver
Non-Profits and Others
Many other organizations were mentioned by focus group members as leaders in
understanding home improvements that save money.



Ten mentioned local programs, such as the active weatherization programs or CEEP
providers.
Six mentioned Internet resources, including Consumer Reports and Angie’s List.
Five mentioned auditors and building analysts.
Leaning Toward Local Talent
Focus group members were also prompted with names of celebrities and political leaders to
help them identify characteristics they thought would be a good fit for a spokesperson
representing energy efficiency.
Most focus group members expressed dismay – even strong disagreement – with the idea of
having celebrity spokespeople, such as a member of the Seahawks football team or billionaire
developer Paul Allen, deliver messages about energy efficiency. Their comments emphasized
the need for any spokesperson to have relevant expertise in home improvement, such as Tim
Allen from the Home Improvement television program or hosts from This Old House.
Nearly every focus group ultimately built consensus on the idea of bringing in “someone like
me.” (In one case, a focus group member suggested that he would be a good spokesperson.)
Many had specific examples of local homeowners, engineers, or architects who had extensive
knowledge of home improvements for energy efficiency. Contractors were considered experts
but were thought to have potential conflicts of interest because they had something to gain
from homeowners’ decisions. Home improvement store employees were suggested as helpful,
but not necessarily unbiased, because their goal is to sell products and services.
Characteristics of effective spokespeople included a strong, pleasant personality; good
communication skills; and the ability to come across as knowledgeable about what they are
talking about. They need a “good face,” and ideally are also knowledgeable about local issues.
Key characteristics included being straightforward, trustworthy, believable, open and
understanding, and familiar with the challenges that homeowners deal with. Having some
education is important, but personal experience is essential. They need to be an educator
without being preachy or patronizing. They need to enjoy educating others, inspire people to
take action, and thoroughly understand all the benefits of the ideas they are advocating.
16
Conclusions
Homeowners who participated in CEEP felt like experts themselves due to their involvement
with the program. They felt well supported and were aware of the resources they could use to
help them move toward their energy conservation goals. They readily acknowledged the value
in feeling knowledgeable.
Non-participants were active in improving their home energy efficiency and were often
engaged and thoughtful about issues of home energy use even though they had declined to
work with their local CEEP provider. Some members of these focus groups were very
knowledgeable about home improvements, equipment, and technology that can make homes
more energy efficient.
Non-participants clearly felt they were on their own
The striking difference between those who participated in CEEP and those who did not was that
non-participants clearly felt they were on their own. They often expressed frustration about the
results of their energy conservation or home improvement efforts. Compared to program
participants, non-participants felt less well supported and expressed that they were in the dark
about resources. They did not know who to turn to for reliable, unbiased information about
energy efficiency improvements. They expressed fear of being overcharged, the work being
done incorrectly, or being sold something they did not need. They tend to be aware of the
technology – windows, heat pumps, etc. – but they did not actively talk about workmanship
and seemed unaware of the most effective, low-cost ways to make their homes more efficient.
Non-participants should be the audience for additional outreach
Any CEEP outreach strategy directed toward this audience should:
 Emphasize the benefits of participating in a local program, including the empowerment
that comes from having access to reliable and timely information.
 Focus on cost and comfort first, but also mention noise reduction, health and
environmental benefits, and using less energy.
People want to see people like themselves as spokespersons
Local talent is trusted. People wanted to see “real” people as spokespersons, people like
themselves who know first-hand where the audience is coming from and who are experts at
answering questions. Common and – ideally – regionally tailored messages should be
developed for regional spokespeople to share.
Utilities and PUDs are important backers of energy efficiency work, but may be viewed with
some distrust and frustration. Their expertise in energy is clear, and they are valued as conduits
of some of the information, but their ulterior motives are suspect. Transparency about their
sponsorship of the programs is critical, but participants have to believe there is no relationship
between rate increases, profitability of the work, and CEEP.
17
Universities were the clear choice as unbiased sources of information
While a few focus group members noted that higher education can be somewhat political,
universities were viewed as the least suspicious of all entities that were discussed for providing
information about home energy efficiency and conservation. Locating home energy efficiency
information and referrals in a centralized place – particularly if the entity is known for doing
community outreach and education, such as extension agents – provides legitimacy to local
programs and balances the utility’s promotions. Endorsements from higher education are seen
as validation that the practices recommended were not influenced by other goals.
Local and state government offices are also needed for legitimacy, but should only be endorsers
of the program, not prominent advocates.
Local home improvement stores should be drawn in as partners. They are trusted sources for
help and information for many people. Stores should direct people to the local CEEP providers
for home assessments, motivated by the desire for their customers to feel the work they did
was effective. If customers are treating a problem without adequate information, such as
adding insulation or replacing windows without investigating air sealing, they will be less happy
with the cost and effort of making the improvements. It makes the stores look smart to refer
them to specialists such as building analysts.
Building analysts are the ultimate source of reliable information
Once building analysts provide recommendations tailored for each customer, CEEP auditors and
advisors help participants prioritize what to do first and assess the cost-benefit/payback period.
Final thoughts on future messaging
Messages need to convey the value (cost benefit) of the assessment because people are still
risk averse – even if the dollar value is considered quite small. It may be beneficial to talk about
surprise discoveries from people who thought they knew what their homes needed.
Regional variation between eastern and western Washington were minimal, with the exception
that pro-environmental attitudes were more commonly expressed in the Seattle area. Clark
County participants also deserve careful attention because they described themselves as
“Northwest Oregon” and were much more attuned to Oregon politics, non-profits, and news
than they were to Washington-based information. They were also fans of their PUD, which is
the seat of their home energy efficiency program (unusual among the WSU Energy Program
CEEPs). The Clark County region may present unique opportunities for implementing additional
outreach.
18
Appendix A: CEEP Sampling Strategy
Area in Washington State
Program Participants
Listed Household
(non-participants)
Assessments
Measures
Walla Walla County
6
6
12
Spokane County
6
6
12
Clark County
Thurston County
Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater
Other Thurston
King County
Seattle
Non-Seattle
Whatcom County
Bellingham
Outside Bellingham
6
6
12
3
3
3
3
6
6
3
3
3
3
6
6
3
3
3
3
6
6
A-1
Appendix B: Statewide Focus Group Facilitation Guide
Overview (5-10 minutes)
1. As participants arrive, they will fill out nametags, first name only. Alternatively, have table tents with
their nametags ready for them. A short survey of basic characteristics (age, sex, age of home,
awareness of home energy assessments, years in the home, presence of children in the home, etc.)
will be administered.
2. Facilitator will introduce self and the note taker and observer(s); note where the restrooms are; and
invite people to enjoy the refreshments during the discussion.
3. Facilitator will describe the purpose of the meeting:
To better understand what homeowners like you think about energy and energy efficiency. Your
discussion will help us design outreach to better inform people about energy and energy
efficiency in Washington state.
4. Facilitator defines a focus group and explains how the group will proceed:
A focus group is a discussion among people who share some common interest or characteristics
(in this case, homeowners who have had an energy assessment), brought together by a
moderator, who uses the group and its interaction as a way to gain information about a specific
topic.
 I will introduce questions for you to consider and would like to hear from all participants. The
discussion will last for about an hour and a half and will be recorded for reference.
 We will use first names in our discussion and no names will be used in any reports. If you
would like me to turn off the recorder at any time so you can make a comment, just let me
know.
Ground rules:
 Stay on-topic
 Only one person speaks at a time
 Give everyone a chance to contribute
 Minimize or eliminate side conversations
 Treat everyone with respect (do not criticize what others have to say)
 Turn off your cell phones and put them away
At the end of the discussion, we will have you sign for your check.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
Discussion Questions (1.25 hours)
B-1